Help me persuade S&W to introduce 4 new models

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Ross

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
534
Location
St. Louis
I prefer S&W DA revolvers to all other handguns, and as you may know I have a very good and long-standing relationship with the factory.

Occasionally I'll handle a revolver that will do something that a Smith & Wesson won't, like a Redhawk in .45 Colt, and I'll wish S&W had made that gun, for then the quality would be better. These are the times that I find myself daydreaming about what I would do if I were in a position of authority at S&W, and what untapped (by S&W) segments of the DA revolver market I might have the Company enter.

Not long ago, I had an epiphany: Smith & Wesson could dominatre the areas it currently ignores with almost no expenditure for engineering and with a minuscule expenditure for one new piece of tooling.

I decided to prepare my thesis as if I were doing a paper for a professor at the Harvard Business School, and present it to the right people at S&W at the SHOT show in Las Vegas Feb. 11-16. After finishing this eight-page position paper, I realized that harried business executives do not like to read eight-page papers, so I knocked it down to a page and a half of bullet points.

Harried executives do not like to read eight-page papers on guns, but gun guys on Internet discussion boards LOVE facts and details, the more the better. So I've posted my piece in its entirety on my website, at the time I leave for the SHOT show.

If you're a heavy magnum DA revolver guy, and agree I've got a good plan of action, email both me and S&W. Contact info for both of us is at the end of the piece. Go to

http://www.john-ross.net/s&wsuccess.htm

We can make this happen!
 
Great idea!
I've already sent the email, and putting some of my discretionary funds on hold to see if this will happen. I hunger for a S&W 44 that can handle 315 grain full loads without shooting loose.
 
Here's what JR's big bore wonder might look like if we could get the custom engraving shop in on the conspiracy:
jrswbig2.jpg
 
Sent.

God, for a Smith heavy .45! My 657 would then assume it's rightful place as backup.

:)

...If a short X-frame chambered for the .454 Casull is offered, it will be my next firearm purchase. There is a good chance it'll be the next firearm AFTER that, as well.
 
I cant see a 500 x frame but I could see a 500 or .454 on Ross' concept
 
Great reading. I sent this to several friends and will
anxiously await their reactions.

My latest S&W is a 629-3 that has been converted by
the S&W Performance Center to a 5 inch 45 Colt.
Weather and health have combined to keep me from
shooting it so far but look forward to it soon.
 
I looked at the short lug x frame he cobbled up on the full sized 500. It looks pretty neat but the short frame idea would save weight and overall size.
 
Last edited:
John, I agree with your statements and recommendations regarding shorter X-frame. However, S&W should pay attention to further improvements of existing N and L frames. Yes, X-frame is attention grabber and it will be for a while, but looks to me that N and L frames are their bread and butter. I would definitely suggest the following:

1. Further improve N-frame by making it stronger and more durable than latest enhanced model so it could take full power 44 magnum loads indefinitely, but without making it too heavy. This should be accomplished by putting more metal where it really counts; top strap and crane area. Any additional metal in those areas will have minimal weight increase.

2. Making front locking mechanism solid and strong, with positive lock-up similar to those on Ruger or D&W. With modern CNC machine tools this shouldn’t be a problem and increase in manufacturing cost will be minimal.

3. Same applies for L-frame. I know, this one, as it is now, takes 357 loads very well, but why not to make it even stronger by making it with better front locking mechanism?

4. Both frames should be available with 19/66 style barrels (no lug) and existing L-frame style barrels (with lug).

5. Front sights should be easily replaceable as on Ruger-s.

6. Both frames should have longer 357 cylinders, I would suggest no less
than 1.700â€(case rim included). N-frame should have no more than 7 bores for greater strength, with bolt notches between chambers. Also it should be available in 360 D&W and for this round cylinder length should be no less than 1.800â€.

7. Grip frame design to be similar to Ruger GP100 or D&W. This will make whole frame considerably lighter and more than offset weight increase for better sturdiness, lower manufacturing cost and give much more flexibility to shooters regarding grip selection. I consider this crucial for shooters with smaller hands or shorter fingers.

8. Use Carpenter Technology 15-5 or similar steel for cylinders and barrels. I wouldn’t hesitate spending additional $50-100 for this feature that will considerably increase durability of the revolvers.

Hope to see them soon on the market.

Thanks, Onty.
 
Rather than aiming this at the manufcaturer who is looking at models for large production runs, maybe present your ideas to the distributors. They're able to contract smaller runs (1000 or so) of non-cataloged models. It would usually require little tooling changes and the like but it is a do-able course to pursue.
 
If S&W wanted my revolver business they'd only have to do one thing. Come out with a special "N" frame "Collector Edition" , no lock. I'll take two each, three inch and five inch. ;)
 
So what happened? Did they come out with the four new models, or what? I haven't been following S&W products for a few years. Do they still have that lock on all the revolvers?
 
People have said for years that they won't buy Smiths with the lock yet Smith doesn't listen. No one complains about the lock on Rugers so locks can be put on a handgun that works and looks good. I have yet to buy a new Smith and never will with the lock as is.

jj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top